“THE BEST LEAGUE”

Taranaki Daily News, 12 July 1935, Page 15

“THE BEST LEAGUE”

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH SIR. A. H. RUSSELL’S IDEA. WHERE GENEVA BODY FAILS. "I suggest to you that a strong league on the part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, divorcing itself from European entanglements, would be a wiser way to achieve that collective security as the beginning of an international peace force, rather than relying on the League of Nations,” said Major-General Sir Andrew Russell, Dominion president of the New Zealand Returned Soldiers’ Association, when addressing the conference of the association at Wellington on the principle of collective security as a means of ensuring world peace. The conference decided that the proposal, as outlined by Sir Andrew, should be sent to the British Empire Service League, London, for consideration. Sir Andrew said that he happened to be ih touch with those advocating collective security at the other end of the world, two or three years ago. Why had they made so little headway? There was. the League of Nations and there had been a definite attempt on the part of the British Cabinet to bring about a better understanding, both as regards disarmament and in bringing about peace. That afternoon, the conference of the New Zealand Returned Soldiers’ Association had been discussing war, but he would suggest that the whole aim and object of the discussion was the question of peace, and how to achieve it. (Applause.) It was merely a negative attitude to say that one would remain unarmed, and it was necessary, therefore, to adopt some constructive method. There had been discussions about collective security which meant an international police force, and that there should be introduced in the relations between nations the same law and order, supported by force, which existed in all countries which had their own police forces. This idea, it was suggested, should obtain also in the world. FAILURE OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS. Those advocating that idea had relied, so far, on the League of Nations as the instrument through which they would work. Considering the aims and objects of the League of Nations, -that was a perfectly natural course for them to adopt.

But he would suggest that the League of Nations was not the right place to start with, because it contained within itself all the reasons for failure, the chief reason being that there were at Geneva nations whose interests and policy were not, however disguised their utterances were, wholly or solely for peace. There was one nation which he would describe as a mob of sheep without a bell wether—without a leader. He would suggest that there was only one nation—only one aggregate of nations —that could bring about the desired effect, and that was the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Both Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald had been insistent, in season and out, in directing that the whole aim and object of the British Empire was one of peace, and of the policy of the British Comnionwealth of Nations they were absolutely convinced.

He would ask the conference to consider certain resolutions, with a view to having them forwarded for consideration by the British Empire Service League. In doing so, the conference would be merely giving publicity to certain views without definitely committing itself. The resolutions were as follows:—

Collective security translated into objective reality by the British Commonwealth of Nations:— (1) Declaring its policy to be that of peace; implemented by armed forces adequate to secure such policy in case of aggression. (2) Inviting such nations as subscribe, in fact, to a policy of peace, to join with the Commonwealth, therewith consenting to pool its resources and armed strength in defence of a policy of peace. (3) Members of such pool withdrawing from all foreign entanglements, and announcing the intention to renounce all guarantees now in existence, as they expire. (4) Pledging themselves to submit any matters of internal dispute to a conference set up among members of the pool, and to abide by its decision. (5) And granting free access to all members of the pool to raw materials of which one may have a superfluity and another deficiency.

(6) Maintaining neutrality in case of war breaking out among non-members unless such war affects adversely the well-being of any member of the league. (7) Continuing membership of the League of Nations, as an instrument for discussion of difficulties between its own and nations outside the pool. CAUSES OF WAR. The main causes of war, said Sir Andrew, were fear, from which was bred suspicion, and the struggle for existence, from which spread greed. In view of the position of the Empire in its control of raw materials, he felt that it would be incumbent on the British to adopt a generous attitude to all those who came into the pool in the matter of raw materials.

Discussing the question of neutrality, he said there was no reason why neutiality should not be maintained, but it would have to be an armed neutrality. Looking over history, there was little doubt that had there been a conference in 1914 the last war would have been averted—at any rate, for a time. Undoubtedly some instrument—some meet-ing-place—was desired where matters of concern could be discussed before the actual crisis arrived.

Any nation coming into the pool must recognise that it took on responsibilities, would have to pay its full share, and would have to discharge obligations, said Sir Andrew. For that reason, he was

glad to see the conference pass a remit that afternoon supporting an adequate defence of the country. It was not so much a question of defence for oursleves. Anything New Zealand did would not avail much if, in the event of war, the British Commonwealth of . Nations lost control of the Pacific, but we had. to play our part in ensuring peace.

“Mr. Leadley would prefer to rely on the League of Nations, whereas I must admit that I have greater faith in our own Commonwealth,” said Sir Andrew.

France was more afraid of war than New Zealand was, for instance, and the building of fortresses on her eastern frontier was the result of fear.

Another war would mean the blotting out of the French nation, because France could not suffer the loss of manhood she suffered in the last war. The interests of Belgium, Denmark, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries were, indisputably bound up with peace, as were our own.

The resolutions were seconded by the Hon. W. Perry, M.L.C. (Dominion vicepresident), who said that the association knew that Sir Andrew had always been a man of constructive ideas. He thought that the proposals contained the germ of a very fine idea. Mr. W. E. Leadley (Christchurch) referred to the success of the confederated North American States, and compared their position with the individual South American States. It was possible, he said, to apply the same principle to . the nations of the world, and the method •should be through the League of Nations.

Sir Andrew Russell’s resolutions were carried.

Mr. Leadley then moved the following resolution, which was carried:— The council expresses its adherence, along with the British Legion and Other bodies of ex-servicemen throughout the Empire, to the support of the League of Nations and the peace machinery of the world; and while considering that under present circumstances the increase in armaments recently proposed by the British Government was necessary and unavoidable, it puts on record its conviction that the safeguarding of world peace necessitates loyal support by public Opinion to the principle of collective security against an aggressor. It welcomes the proposal recently made by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, that efforts be renewed to bring exservicemen of all countries into friendly relations, so that theft united efforts may help, to promote the cause of peace.